Peter Henderson wrote:I hope you were able to challange him Michael. Isn't Rosevear a Chemist ?

I'll record it on Sky+ and have a listen.

I wasnt given a fair chance and if I tried he was impervious.

I've just listened to this Michael and I think you're being just a little hard on yourself. You made a good attempt to answer some difficult theological questions ( e.g. Jesus believed in a literal Genesis etc.). Your point on the exaggerated numbers in the bible was a good one.Even the evolutionary bioligist (who was an atheist) acknowlodged this. However, the discussion in general just shows how much YEC's are damaging the evangelical church. The Atheist biologist guy picked up on this and used it to attack Christians who accept mainstream science, implying that Christians had to make a choice between belief in the bible/YECism and Aitheism/science. According to him you couldn't have it both ways (i.e Christianity and an acceptance of mainstream science). I think both you and I (and many other Christians) profoundly disagree with this point which is often raised by Atheists.

The evolutionary bioligist made some very good points on genetic variability (he had looked on the CSM website beforehand) and obviously has a keen interest in the so-called debate. He was also aware of the Talkorigins website and the numerous creationist claims. At least he didn't make a fool of himself and had Rosevear in difficulty on a number of occasions.

The geologist guy was also quite good after a shaky start and raised some good points on geological sorting (he appeared to be aware of hydraulic sorting) and was about to get onto ammonites (which likely would have had Rosevear in difficulty again) when he was cut short.

At least Premier Radio allow a debate and different views. The same can't be said for Howard Conder who often has Rosevear as a guest on the world in focus. On those occasions Rosevear isn't challenged at all.

Overall you did fine Michael. I would have been interested on how you would have tackled Rosevear's misrepresentations on geology had you been given a chance. His claims appear to be a similar situation to those on Mary Higby Schweitzer and Jack Horner's research i.e. the "dino blood and a young Earth" one:

Thanks for that peter. I did not hear the programme but was involved with all the pre-edited programme.

The article I quoted on vast numbers is by an Americanb OT scholar who is one of the chief theological supporters of YEC. It is by David Fouts a prof at Bryan college and is on the Journal of the Evangelcial Theological Society website published in c1999. To me it totally demolishs any strict literal reading of the OT. It needs to be widely read

jon_12091 wrote:Have you got the full reference as an attempt to track it down just failed. The only Fouts paper I came across in JETS was about continental drift!

I can't help with that, but there's an interesting article on OT numbers here: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1num95.html It doesn't offer any evidence of misinterpretation, just exaggeration - which appears to have been commonplace in ancient times. IIRC I read somewhere that such numbers were never intended to be taken literally, being just shorthand for "ever so many".

I've tried to listen to this programme but the popup window just freezes every time. Anyone else having difficulties? Am I on the wrong version of WMP or something? Or, is there anywhere else it might be heard, or read?

However a search on "Robert Stovold" brought up a CSM report on the debate, by Andrew Sibley, which includes the following:

"Also Michael Roberts criticised the Biblical Exodus account for asserting that 200 million people came out of Egypt. This is classic ‘straw man’ tactics, or perhaps Michael would like to tell us where he got his figure from, or admit that he made a mistake. But in my Bible it says that 600,000 men came out of Egypt (Ex 12:37) along with their wives and children, perhaps a figure of 2 to 3 million people in all."

So I'd like to ask Michael in particular: did you really assert that? If so, I'm afraid that was a blunder. On the Paul Taylor thread you mention that you've since had an email correspondence with David Rosevear. Were you aware of Sibley's report above, and if so, if it was wrong on this point, did you point it out to Rosevear? If you did, I'm surprised it's still up there in the article.

But whichever way it is, the broader point that emerges out of this (in the light of the last few posts on this thread) is that you have shown that your denial of the historicity of Scripture goes way beyond Genesis 1-11. This is significant for anyone who thinks that it can be confined to those initial chapters of the Bible. It also takes you right out of that relatively small domain of Biblical history for which you could claim that your secular academic background gave you a reason to reject it.

All in all, I am left wondering whether the editors of a conservative evangelical journal such as Churchman knew of your general attitude to the historical parts of the Bible when they acepted your article for publication in 1998 - or whether they would have published it had they known.

Krijimbesuesi wrote:I've tried to listen to this programme but the popup window just freezes every time. Anyone else having difficulties? Am I on the wrong version of WMP or something? Or, is there anywhere else it might be heard, or read?

However a search on "Robert Stovold" brought up a CSM report on the debate, by Andrew Sibley, which includes the following:

"Also Michael Roberts criticised the Biblical Exodus account for asserting that 200 million people came out of Egypt. This is classic ‘straw man’ tactics, or perhaps Michael would like to tell us where he got his figure from, or admit that he made a mistake. But in my Bible it says that 600,000 men came out of Egypt (Ex 12:37) along with their wives and children, perhaps a figure of 2 to 3 million people in all."

So I'd like to ask Michael in particular: did you really assert that? If so, I'm afraid that was a blunder. On the Paul Taylor thread you mention that you've since had an email correspondence with David Rosevear. Were you aware of Sibley's report above, and if so, if it was wrong on this point, did you point it out to Rosevear? If you did, I'm surprised it's still up there in the article.

But whichever way it is, the broader point that emerges out of this (in the light of the last few posts on this thread) is that you have shown that your denial of the historicity of Scripture goes way beyond Genesis 1-11. This is significant for anyone who thinks that it can be confined to those initial chapters of the Bible. It also takes you right out of that relatively small domain of Biblical history for which you could claim that your secular academic background gave you a reason to reject it.

All in all, I am left wondering whether the editors of a conservative evangelical journal such as Churchman knew of your general attitude to the historical parts of the Bible when they acepted your article for publication in 1998 - or whether they would have published it had they known.

It was a bad slip of the tongue, totally unconscious as at first I said I didnt say it as from numbers it is 2 million. I accept the historicity of Exodus but not the vast numbers which have been considered in many ways. That probably wont appeal to many here or creationists, but my views are the same as many like Polkinghorne or Mcgrath, or even Colin Humphreys in his book The Miracles of Exodus.

I undoubtedly take a far more conservative view of the Exodus than Mikey, who probably thinks I am wrong!!!!.

As for Rosevear he continuially parrots misunderstandings of geology and cant/wont listen to correction.

Finally what is historicity? Does it mean that there are actual events behind what is written or is the writing a totally literal account.
as a book editor is on my back I dont want to get drawn into a discussion on that!!

Dever writes that he wishes that more would follow "the refreshing example" of Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple, near UCLA, who, in a Passover sermon, according to Dever, said:

The Truth is that virtually every archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.

-------------------

More specifically, I regard the Exodus story as non-historical in nature and tend towards William Dever's published views on it.

Joshua 19:43 hints at Ekron being assigned to the tribe of Dan. I've excavated at Ekron (the famous inscription was found two trenches from me three days after I arrived!) and no pre-600 BC Israeli occupation of any sort is attested to.

It was a bad slip of the tongue, totally unconscious as at first I said I didnt say it as from numbers it is 2 million. I accept the historicity of Exodus but not the vast numbers which have been considered in many ways. That probably wont appeal to many here or creationists, but my views are the same as many like Polkinghorne or Mcgrath, or even Colin Humphreys in his book The Miracles of Exodus.

I undoubtedly take a far more conservative view of the Exodus than Mikey, who probably thinks I am wrong!!!!.

Michael: I'm sure I have one of the essays from Talkreason somewhere that interprets the Exodus as a series of events rather than a single one. I also seem to rememeber that the TV documentry series "the bible unearthed" eluded to this as well.

Out of interest, how do you see the parting of the Red Sea ? Can this story be attributed to a geological event and if so what was it ? If it isn't then what are the origins of this story ? Or would you view this a purely supernatural event ? How do you see this Mike ?

Peter Henderson wrote:Out of interest, how do you see the parting of the Red Sea ? Can this story be attributed to a geological event and if so what was it ? If it isn't then what are the origins of this story ? Or would you view this a purely supernatural event ? How do you see this Mike ?

On a BBC 4 documentary, "10 things you didn't know about ..." (I believe it was the Tsunamis one), Prof. Iain Stewart suggested that the myth might be based on that (a tsunami) because of the way the water draws back so massively then comes in a few minutes later (so allowing the Israelites across and killing the following Pharoah's army)

Peter Henderson wrote:Out of interest, how do you see the parting of the Red Sea ? Can this story be attributed to a geological event and if so what was it ? If it isn't then what are the origins of this story ? Or would you view this a purely supernatural event ? How do you see this Mike ?

On a BBC 4 documentary, "10 things you didn't know about ..." (I believe it was the Tsunamis one), Prof. Iain Stewart suggested that the myth might be based on that (a tsunami) because of the way the water draws back so massively then comes in a few minutes later (so allowing the Israelites across and killing the following Pharoah's army)

Kyu

Yes, I think I vaguely remember seeing that one Kyu and it does seem as if it may be the origin of the story. I have recorded the series, which is being repeated on BBC 4 at the moment so I'll have a look and see if I have that one.

I think Iain Stewart is really excellent by the way. He's certainly doing his best to populerise geology. I wonder if he's aware how widespread YECism is and how they are pushing flood geology ?

Peter Henderson wrote:I think Iain Stewart is really excellent by the way. He's certainly doing his best to populerise geology. I wonder if he's aware how widespread YECism is and how they are pushing flood geology ?

IIRC I believe he made some oblique references to it in the "Earth" series which I've also been watching ... I agreed he's excellent even if he is Scottish (that's a joke I'm allowed to make BTW since I'm half-Scot [GRIN]), his programs so far have been very watchable.

There's a few other presenters I like too Jim Al-Khalili ("Atom"), Michio Kaku ("Visions Of The Future") and Brian Cox ("Horizon: What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity") ... I love the BBC, I love iPlayer